DINESH DUIT JOSHI versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 465 · Decided: 01-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH, R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

...... 
DINESH DUIT JOSHI 
v. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 1, 2001 
[M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : 
S. 482-lnherent powers of High Court-High Court, without issuing 
notice and hearing the accused, setting aside order of his discharge passed by 
trial court-Two accused prosecuted.for committing o.ffences punishable under 
s.13( 1 )(d) read with s.13(2) o.f Prevention of Corruption Act and s.120-B 1PC-
Trial court discharging one of them.framed charges against the other who.filed 
a revision petition be.fore High Court-High Court dismissing the revision and, 
exercising jurisdiction 1t!s 482 but without issuing notice and hearing the 
A 
B 
c 
~- 1 
accused discharged by trial court, setting aside order of his discharge observing 
D 
that discharge o.f the main accused has resulted into abuse of process of court-
Appeal by accused who had been discharged by trial court--Held, the principle 
embodied in s.482 is based upon the maxim: Quando lex aliquid alicuiconcedit, 
concede re videdur id quo res ipsa esse non protest-Howeve1; use of this extra 
ordinary power is required to be reserved, as.far as possible, for extm ordinary 
cases-Matter remanded to High Court for passing appropriate order after 
hearing appellant-Counsel.for appellant lu1s conceded that no.fresh order be 
served and this order be deemetl to be a notice served upon the appellant to 
show cause as to why order of trial court discharging him be not set aside and 
E 
he be charged.for the offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act. 
Legal Maxim : 
Quando lex aliquid alicuiconcedit, concedere videdur id quo res ipsa 
esse non protest--Explained. 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1004 
G 
of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4. 2001 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in Crl. M.P. No. 734 of 1993. 
B.D. Sharma for the Appellant. 
465 
H 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Manish Singhvi and Javed Mahmud Rao for the Respondents. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leav~ granted. 
The appellant is alleged to have demanded brib~ money of Rs. 1200 as 
illegal gratification for providing electric connection to one Sarup Singh. On 
the complaint of said Sarup Singh a trap is stated to have been laid by the 
police. According to the prosecution, the currency notes valuing Rs. 1200, 
which was dusted with phenolphthalein powder were paid to Tejpal Singh as 
per directions of the appellant herein. The raiding party recovered the amount 
from Tejpal Singh who, upon enquiry, stated that he had received the amount 
from Sarup Singh as per instructions of the appellant. After completion of the 
investigation a final report was submitted in the Court of sub-Judge, Jodhpur 
against the appellant and Tejpal ~ingh for the commission of offences punishable 
under Section 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption 
Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 
The trial court framed charges against Tejpal Singh but discharged the 
appellant vide its orders dated 10.12.1993. Dissatisfied with the order of 
. framing the charge against him, Tejpal Singh, accused filed a revision petition 
in the High Court .which was dismissed vide the order impugned in this petition. 
While dismissing the revision petition of Tejpal Singh, the learned Judge, 
in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
set aside the order of the trial court in so far as it related to the appellant and 
directed the Special Judge to frame charges against him also for the offences 
punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. 
~hi le setting aside the order of discharge passed in favour of the appellant, 
the learned Single Judge held : 
"Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this court has inherent powers to make 
such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this 
court or to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure 
the ends of justice. 
I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where this Court 
should exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where the learned 
Special Judge by this very impugned order discharged the main accused 
... 
..... 
D.D. JOSHI v. STATE 
467 
because by discharging him it has resulted into abuse of process of 
A 
court, therefore, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned order 
passed by the learned Special Jud
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.